Executive Summary

ourts
C
in gures

2015

National Council of Justice

2015
President Chief Justice Ricardo Lewandowski

National Judicial Surveyor Chief Justice Nancy Andrighi

Councillors Chief Justice Lelio Bentes Corra

Carlos Augusto de Barros Levenhagen
Bruno Ronchetti de Castro
Daldice Maria Santana de Almeida
Fernando Csar Baptista de Mattos
Gustavo Tadeu Alkmim
Carlos Eduardo Oliveira Dias
Luiza Cristina Fonseca Frischeisen
Arnaldo Hossepian Lima Junior
Luiz Cludio Silva Allemand
Jos Norberto Lopes Campelo
Emmanoel Campelo de Souza Pereira
Fabiano Augusto Martins Silveira
SecretaryGeneral Fabrcio Bittencourt da Cruz

General Director Fabyano Alberto Stalschmidt Prestes

Departament of Judicial Research

Executive Director Fernanda Paixo Arajo Pinto
Project Director Santiago Falluh Varella
Technical Director Thamara Duarte Cunha Medeiros

Researchers Gabriela Moreira

Igor Stemler
Statistical Filipe Pereira

Jaqueline Barbo

Contents

Support for research Danielly Queirs

Lucas Delgado
Pmela Tieme Aoyama
Pedro Amorim
Ricardo Marques

Organizer Fernanda Paixo Arajo Pinto

www.cnj.jus.br

1
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2
Financial Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3
Human Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4
General Litigation Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

5
Impact of Tax Foreclosure Proceedings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17

6
Compared Court Productivity Index (IPC Jus). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21
6.1. R esults of the Compared Productivity Index IPC Jus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7
Concluding Remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

COURTS IN FIGURES 2015 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1
Introduction
Courts in Figures, a report governed by Resolution N. 76, issued by the National Council of Justice,
integrates the National System of Statistics of the Judicial Branch SIESPJ. Such set of data provides
for the consistent debate on the indicators of public spending, structure and litigation level of Brazils
Judicial Branch.
All data handled by SIESPJ is reported by Court Presidencies, in compliance with principles of
publicity, efficiency, transparency, mandatory disclosure of statistical data and presumption of
truthfulness. The Presidency of a Court is the body responsible for the accuracy of all information
that has been reported to the CNJ, and it may delegate powers to a judge or a specialized civil servant
who integrates the Statistical Division the attributions to generate, check and transmit statistical data.
This document summarizes the most relevant data addressed in the Courts in Figures report that
covered the fiscal year of 2014, adding relevant information to this six year time series. Such data
refer to consolidated information disclosed by agencies and offices of the Judicial Branch, except the
Federal Supreme Court (STF) and the councils. It encompasses, thus, information released by State
Appellate Courts, Regional Federal Appellate Courts, Regional Appellate Labor Courts, State Courts
of Military Appeals, Regional Electoral Courts, the Military Justice of the Federal Government (military
audits and the Military Court of Appeals STM), the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), the Superior Labor
Court (TST) and the Superior Electoral Court (TSE)1. The disclosed information comprises figures that
refer to the 2nd instance, 1st instance, smallclaims courts, appellate panels, regional harmonizing
panels2, and superior courts. The used indicators as well as indepth assessments that individually
address different court systems are available for consultation in the full report.

The fiscal years of 2009 and 2010 only feature information on the State Justice, Labor Justice, Federal Justice and the Superior Labor Court TST.

2 SmallClaims Courts and Appellate Panels integrate both the State and the Federal Court Systems. Regional Harmonizing Panels integrate only the
Federal Court System.

COURTS IN FIGURES 2015 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2
Financial
Resources
The total expenditures of the Judicial Branch totaled approximately BRL 68.4 billion, an increase
of 4.3% in relation to 20133. This expenditure accounts for 1.2% in relation to the national GDP, 2.3% of
the total expenditures of the Federal Government, States and Municipalities in 2014 and BRL 337.28
per inhabitant. The State Courts account for the largest share of expenditures, approximately 55% of
the total amount spent by the Judicial Branch. The Labor Courts are responsible for the second largest
expenditure (21% of the expenses made by the Judicial Branch), followed by the Federal Courts (13% of
the total). It is worth noting that the increase of 33.4% in the total spent during the sixyear period is
inuenced by the insertion of data reported by superior courts (TSE, STJ and STM), by the Electoral Court
System and by State Courts of Military Appeals in the Courts in Figures reports only as of 2011 onwards.
Labor and Federal Court Systems feature the largest percentages spent in human resources,
93.5% and 89.8%, respectively, whereas Superior and Electoral Court Systems account for the smallest
shares, 83.8% and 84.1%, respectively (Table 2).
Information technology (IT) accounted for expenditures of BRL 2.9 billion, noting that such amount
is equivalent to only 4.3% of all expenditures made by Brazilian courts. In proportion to their total
expenditures, the superior courts are the instances that most invest in information technology, a
15.6% share of the budget. However, such significant percentage reected the expenditures reported
by the Superior Electoral Court, which amounted to BRL 347 million. The Electoral Court System comes
next, with 6.5% of total expenditures allocated in information technology.

3 The monetary values referred to in this report, related to 2009 2013, are deated by the Broad Consumer Price Index of December, 2014 (IPCA/DEC 2014).

COURTS IN FIGURES 2015 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

It is worth noting that the Judicial Branch collected approximately BRL 27 billion from miscellaneous
revenues, which amounts to 39.4% of total expenditures, featuring a reduction in relation to 2013,
when the revenues totaled BRL 32.7 billion, or 49.9% of total expenditures.

Graph 1 Time Series of the Expenditures of the Judicial Branch

Table 1 Expenditures of the Judicial Branch

Expenditure Description

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

DPJ Total Expenditures of Brazilian Courts 51.166.167.828 53.002.586.554 60.209.196.928 64.567.339.755 65.588.405.261 68.385.447.621
% in relation to GDP

1,17%

1,11%

1,22%

1,30%

1,20%

1,24%

46.113.142.377 47.422.117.787 53.982.982.370 57.309.284.379 58.872.655.562 61.185.097.511

Expenditures on HR
% in relation to DPJ
Expenditures on Goods and Services

90,8%

89,5%

89,7%

88,8%

89,8%

89,5%

Var. 2013x14
4,3%
0,04 p.p.
3,9%
0,29 p.p.

4.831.505.115

5.485.719.418

6.251.868.979

7.270.834.387

7.136.986.715

7.263.685.824

1,8%

% in relation to DPJ

9,4%

10,3%

10,4%

11,3%

10,9%

10,6%

0,26 p.p.

Expenditures on IT

1.539.915.952

1.662.067.665

2.205.841.724

2.951.659.134

2.897.042.689

2.934.773.508

1,3%

3,1%

3,2%

3,6%

4,6%

4,4%

4,3%

0,09 p.p.

% in relation to the Total

Source: Courts in Figures 2014

[1] p.p.: percentage points. When handling indexes, variations are preferably analyzed in absolute terms, in percentage points.
[2] All monetary values of 2009 2013 deated by IPCA/DEC 2014.
[3] STJ, STM, TSE, the Electoral Court System and the State Military Court System were included in the report as of 2011 onwards.

Table 2 Expenditures of the Judicial Branch in 2014 by Court System

Court System

Total Expenditures of Brazilian Courts (DPJ) Expenditures on Human Resources (DRH)

Expenditures on IT (Dinf)

Expenditure (BRL)

DPJ/GDP

Expenditure (BRL)

DRH/DPJ

37.598.870.632

0,68%

33.467.967.734

89,0%

1.484.063.933

3,9%

Federal Courts

8.710.192.624

0,16%

7.825.802.337

89,8%

317.629.350

3,6%

Labor Courts

14.203.126.022

0,26%

13.273.548.609

93,5%

360.020.684

2,5%

Electoral Courts

4.782.707.761

0,09%

4.023.122.069

84,1%

305.656.173

6,5%

116.899.056

0,00%

102.623.034

87,8%

4.152.682

3,6%

State Courts

State Military Courts

Expenditure (BRL) Dinf/DPJ

Superior Courts

2.973.651.526

0,05%

2.492.033.728

83,8%

463.250.687

15,6%

Judicial Branch Total

68.385.447.621

1,24%

61.185.097.511

89,5%

2.934.773.508

4,3%

Source: Courts in Figures 2014

COURTS IN FIGURES 2015 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3
Human Resources
The Judicial Branch has 16,927 judges, noting that 14,518 of them (85.8%) serve in the first instance,
which comprises the first degree of jurisdiction and the smallclaims courts, and 2,332 of them are
appellate judges. In addition to these judges, there are 77 ministers serving in the 4 superior courts
(STJ, TST, TSE and STM), besides the judges of the appellate panels and regional harmonizing panels. The
number of judges has been gradually increasing, rising by 5.2% during the sixyear period4 (Table 3).
Brazilian Courts count on a workforce of 418 thousand employees, of which 279 thousand (67%)
are civil servants, servants requested from other government agencies or entities and employees
without formal affiliation to public service, and 139 thousand occupy auxiliary positions as outsourced
workforce, interns, lay judges and hearing officers5. Although both hiring models feature a rising
trend as of 2009, the number of auxiliary positions increased more significantly, displaying a positive
variation of 2.4% in the past year. The share of positions filled by interns, outsourced workforce, lay
judges and hearing officers rose from 32.9% in 2013 to 33.3% of the total number of employees in
2014. Additionally, civil servants that work in the judicial area, that is, those that perform activities
within the core field of the court, represent 78% of the total number of employees (excluding the
auxiliary workforce).
A broader assessment indicated an average number of 8 judges and 206 employees per every
100,000 inhabitants.

4 Such increase is also inuenced by the inclusion of new courts in the report as of 2011 onwards.
5 Only State Courts have lay judges and hearing officers.

11

Courts in Figures 2015|Executive Summary

Table 3 Number of Judges and Employees serving the Judicial Branch

Civil Servants and Judges

Var.
2013x14

6year
period var.

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

16.087

16.397

16.413

16.138

16.477

16.927

2,7%

5,2%

8,4

8,6

8,5

8,3

8,2

8,3

1,9%

0,6%

314.516

325.014

365.566

397.121

412.757

418.005

1,3%

32,9%

164

170

190

205

205

206

0,4%

25,5%

Civil servants, servants requested from other government agencies or

entities and employees without formal affiliation to public service1

227.396

230.781

263.365

271.593

276.773

278.707

0,7%

22,6%

Auxiliary workforce

87.120

94.233

102.201

125.528

135.984

139.298

2,4%

59,9%

% of auxiliary workforce

27,7%

29,0%

28,0%

31,6%

32,9%

33,3%

0,4 p.p.

5,6 p.p.

179.585

187.491

205.232

210.668

217.453

218.151

0,3%

21,5%

79,0%

81,2%

77,9%

77,6%

78,6%

78,3%

0,3 p.p.

50,6 p.p.

Total Number of Judges

Number of Judges per every 100,000 inhabitants
Total Number of Employees
Number of Employees per every 100,000 inhabitants

Civil servants that work in the judicial area3

% of civil servants that work in the judicial area

Source: Courts in Figures 2014

[1] Excluded civil servants assigned to other government agencies or entities.
[2] The auxiliary workforce includes outsourced staff, interns, lay judges and hearing officers.
[3] The numbers of the auxiliary workforce are included in the assessment of servants that work in the judicial area.
[4] p.p.: percentage points. When handling indexes, variations are preferably analyzed in absolute terms, in percentage points.
[5] STJ, STM, TSE, the Electoral Court System and the State Military Court System were included in the report as of 2011 onwards.

The State Courts feature the highest number of cases and the largest expenditure amounts. Their
staff numbers are also the largest ones, accounting for 68% of judges and 65% of employees. Labor
Courts come next, with 20% of judges and 13% of employees, followed by the Electoral Courts, with
18% and 7% of the workforce each one.
The Superior Courts made the most significant use of the auxiliary workforce (interns and
outsourced staff) to form their staff in 2014, and 45% of their personnel were hired under this model,
exception made to the STM, which registered only 40%. The share of outsourced staff and interns was
also low in State Military and Labor Courts (21% and 26%, respectively).
Table 4 Judges and Employees serving the Judicial Branch per Court System
Court System

Judges

Total

Employees
Civil servants, servants requested from other
government agencies or entities and employees
without formal affiliation to public service

Auxiliary
Workforce

Share of the
Auxiliary
Workforce

State Courts

11.631

271.759

179.711

92.048

34%

Federal Courts

1.751

47.065

28.786

18.279

39%

Labor Courts

3.400

55.325

41.217

14.108

26%

Electoral Courts

4
General Litigation
Data
There were 70.8 million pending lawsuits in early 2014, and other 28.5 million suits were filed
during that year, totaling 99.7 million cases pending to be reviewed by the Judicial Branch, an increase
of 4.2% in relation to the previous year and 19.1% in relation to the sixyear period. In relative terms, the
filing of new lawsuits accounted for the least significant increase that year (1.1%), whereas remanded/
dismissed cases featured an increase of 1.4% and the number of judgments, 4%.
Collected data indicates a significant increase in the number of new lawsuits, which rose 17.2%
during the sixyear period. The major bottleneck of the Judicial Branch, however, lies in the dismissal
of pending lawsuits. Although the courts have entered judgments and remanded/dismissed almost
as many cases as the filing of new ones, the amount of pending lawsuits was not reduced, instead,
it has been gradually increasing overtime.
Table 5 Case flow in 2009 2014
Case flow
New Lawsuits

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

24.631.418

24.005.741

26.077.097

28.032.551

28.557.871

28.878.663

2013x14 Var. 6year period var.

1,1%

17,2%

3.180

31.019

21.756

9.263

30%

Pending Lawsuits

59.089.787

60.737.579

62.013.807

64.451.285

67.131.040

70.828.587

5,5%

19,9%

State Military Courts

40

544

432

112

21%

Remanded/Dismissed Cases

25.338.033

24.132.797

25.794.463

27.697.102

28.098.166

28.498.708

1,4%

12,5%

Superior Courts

77

11.564

6.370

5.194

45%

Military Audits

28

729

435

294

40%

16.927

418.005

278.707

139.298

33%

Judicial Branch Total

Judgments and Rulings

23.693.685

23.154.638

23.659.373

24.859.247

25.960.579

26.997.501

4,0%

13,9%

Cases being processed

83.721.205

84.743.320

88.090.904

92.483.836

95.688.911

99.707.250

4,2%

19,1%

Source: Courts in Figures 2014

[1] Pending lawsuits in the beginning of each fiscal year.
[2] The total number of cases being processed is calculated by the sum of new and pending lawsuits.
[3] STJ, STM, TSE, the Electoral Court System and the State Military Court System were included in the report as of 2011 onwards.

Source: Courts in Figures 2014

12

13

COURTS IN FIGURES 2015 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

remanded/dismissed by civil servants that work in the judicial area (7.4%). However, a comparative
analysis of the number of cases remanded/dismissed by judges registered an increase of 8.3%.
The demand for the services rendered by the Judicial Branch is a factor of concern as it grows more
significantly (17.2%) than the termination of cases, both in number of remanded/dismissed cases
(12.5%) and in number of rendered judgments (13.9%). As a result, in addition to regular increases in the
number of pending cases, there was a drop of 4.2 percentage points in the ratio of cases remanded/
dismissed by each new lawsuit that is filed, which indicated that the courts were not even capable of
reducing the number of lawsuits that were filed during the assessed period. Aer a few oscillations,
the backlog rate reached 71.4% in 2014, a worse performance compared to the one registered in 2013.

Graph 2 Case flow in 2009 2014

Table 7 Litigation Indicators

Indicators
Backlog Rate1
Remanded/Dismissed Cases per New Lawsuit

Number of Judgments Rendered per Judge2

Number of Cases Remanded/Dismissed per Judge

Number of Cases Remanded/Dismissed per Civil Servant

The State Courts feature the largest litigation volume, accounting for 70% of the filing of new
lawsuits. This Court System encompasses a relative lack of proportionality between resources and
litigation volume, as it is responsible for 55% of the expenditures of the Judicial Branch and 65% of
the total workforce, but in charge of 78% of the cases being processed. The Federal Courts rank 2nd in
the number of new lawsuits (4 million) and in number of cases being processed (12.5 million Table 6).
Table 6 Case flow by Court System in 2014
New Lawsuits

Pending Lawsuits

Remanded/
Dismissed Cases

Judgments and
Rulings

Cases being
processed

State Courts

20.141.982

57.206.736

19.945.948

19.123.560

77.348.718

Federal Courts

4.052.021

8.484.488

3.699.229

3.046.481

12.536.509

Labor Courts

3.990.500

4.396.590

4.210.711

4.056.062

8.387.090

109.059

110.826

139.805

122.007

219.885

Court System

Electoral Courts
State Military Courts

4.439

3.961

5.592

5.664

8.400

Superior Courts

578.844

624.008

495.749

641.964

1.202.852

Military Audits

1.818

1.978

1.674

1.763

3.796

20.141.982

57.206.736

19.945.948

19.123.560

77.348.718

Judicial Branch Total

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2013x14 Var.

6year period var.

69,7%

71,5%

70,9%

70,1%

70,6%

71,4%

0,8 p.p.

1,7 p.p.

103%

101%

99%

99%

98%

99%

0,3 p.p.

4,2 p.p.

1472,85 1412,13 1441,50 1540,42 1575,56 1594,94

1,2%

8,3%

1575,06 1471,78 1571,59 1716,27 1705,30 1683,62

1,3%

6,9%

141,09

1,1%

7,4%

128,71

125,68

129,21

130,64

Source: Courts in Figures 2014

p.p.: percentage points. When handling indexes, variations are preferably analyzed in absolute terms, in percentage points.
[1] Measures the percentage of cases being processed that were not remanded/dismissed during the year
Backlog Rate = 1 Total of Remanded/Dismissed Cases / (New Lawsuit + Pending Lawsuit).
[2] Measures the case ow index, in case it is not possible to reduce the number of cases being processed in comparison to the filing
of new lawsuits.
Remanded/Dismissed Cases per New Lawsuit = Total of Remanded or Dismissed Cases / Total of New Lawsuits.
[3] Judge Productivity Index: (Judgments + Rulings) / Judge.
[4] Judge Productivity Index: Total of Remanded or Dismissed Cases / Judges.
[5] Employees Productivity Index: Total of Remanded or Dismissed Cases / Civil Servants working in the judicial area.
[6] STJ, STM, TSE, the Electoral Court System and the State Military Court System were included in the report as of 2011 onwards.

Graph 3 Time Series of Performance Indicators

Source: Courts in Figures 2014

[1] Pending lawsuits in the beginning of each fiscal year
[2] The total of cases being processed is calculated by the sum of new and pending lawsuits.
[3] STJ, STM, TSE, the Electoral Court System and the State Military Court System were included in the report as of 2011 onwards.

The significant increase in the number of rendered judgments and remanded/dismissed cases
during the sixyear period (13.9% and 19.9%, respectively) was followed by increase in the index of
judgment productivity per judge (around 6.9%) but there was a decrease in the number of cases

14

131,43

15

COURTS IN FIGURES 2015 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Graph 4 Time Series of Productivi Indicators

5
Impact of Tax
Foreclosure
Proceedings
Tax foreclosure accounts for 30% of all cases being processed in the Judicial Branch; 38% of the
pending cases, but only 12% of new cases. Thus, the major bottleneck with regard to tax foreclosure
is the termination of existing cases (pending cases) which, just as other types of cases, features
consistent growth rates year aer year. Despite the efforts to decrease the number of remanded/
dismissed cases in 9.7%, the number of pending cases keeps growing, as the number of remanded/
dismissed cases, with respect to tax foreclosure proceedings, accounts for only 80.2% of the new cases.
The backlog rate reaches 91% in tax foreclosure proceedings, which means that only 9 cases out of
100 are annually remanded or dismissed. With regard to judgments, the prospects are not promising
either, and only 8.4% of the cases being processed were judged in 2014.
Table 8 Case flow in Tax Foreclosure Proceedings
Tax Foreclosure

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2013x14 Var.

6year period var.

3.454.753

3.137.386

3.793.498

3.690.925

3.564.769

3.365.674

5,6%

2,6%

Pending Lawsuits

23.797.898

23.967.950

24.547.716

25.668.046

26.481.998

26.981.792

1,9%

13,4%

Remanded/
Dismissed Cases

3.646.007

2.336.956

2.940.857

3.084.396

2.991.073

2.700.137

9,7%

25,9%

Judgments and Rulings

3.421.259

2.472.746

2.283.439

2.250.232

2.380.518

2.561.633

7,6%

25,1%

Cases being processed

27.252.651

27.105.336

28.341.214

29.358.971

30.046.767

30.347.466

1,0%

11,4%

New Lawsuits
1

Source: Courts in Figures 2014

[1] Pending lawsuits in the beginning of each fiscal year
[2] The total of cases being processed is calculated by the sum of new and pending lawsuits.
[3] The Electoral Court System was included in the report as of 2011 onwards.

16

17

COURTS IN FIGURES 2015 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table 10 Case flow of Tax Foreclosure Proceedings per Court System

Table 9 Percentage Share of Tax Foreclosure Proceedings

Case Flow

Percentage share of Tax Foreclosure Proceedings in relation to the total of cases in the Judicial Branch
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014

Court System

New
Lawsuits

Pending
Lawsuits1

Remanded /
Dismissed Cases

Judgments and
Rulings

Cases being
processed2

New Lawsuits

14%

13%

15%

13%

12%

12%

State Courts

2.920.112

23.408.690

2.330.177

2.316.174

26.328.802

Pending Lawsuits

40%

39%

40%

40%

39%

38%

Federal Courts

410.235

3.455.805

331.239

230.946

3.866.040

Remanded/Dismissed Cases

14%

10%

11%

11%

11%

9%

Labor Courts

34.676

114.699

38.106

14.223

149.375

Judgments and Rulings

14%

11%

10%

9%

9%

9%

651

2.598

615

290

3.249

Cases being processed

33%

32%

32%

32%

31%

30%

3.365.674

26.981.792

2.700.137

2.561.633

30.347.466

Source: Courts in Figures 2014

[1] Pending lawsuits in the beginning of each fiscal year
[2] The total of cases being processed is calculated by the sum of new and pending lawsuits.
[3] The Electoral Court System was included in the report as of 2011 onwards.

Graph 5 Time Series of Tax Foreclosure Proceedings in Relation to Other Cases

Electoral Courts

Judicial Branch Total

Source: Courts in Figures 2014

[1] Pending lawsuits in the beginning of each fiscal year
[2] The total of cases being processed is calculated by the sum of new and pending lawsuits.

To illustrate the abovedepicted scenario, if all tax foreclosure proceedings were withdrawn from
the Judicial Branch, the backlog rate, which reached 71.4% in 2014, would fall 8.6 percentage points
to 62.8%. The index of remanded/dismissed cases per new case would also feature significant
improvements (101.1%), surpassing 100%, which is the minimum desirable level in order to avoid judicial
backlog. The number of cases being processed, which amounted to 99.7 million in 2014, would be
reduced to 69.4 million (Table 11).
Provided the same context, the backlog rate would fall from 74.2% to 65.5% in the State Courts
(a reduction of 8.7 percentage points), noting that the Federal Courts would experience an even
more significant drop, 9.3 percentage points (falling from 70.5% to 61.2%). The number of cases being
processed would be reduced to 34% in the State Courts and to 30.8% in the Federal Courts.
Table 11 Impact of Tax Foreclosure Proceedings on Performance Indicators
Performance Indicators
Tax Foreclosure

Other Cases

It is worth noting that out of the 30.3 million tax foreclosure proceedings being processed, 86.8%
(26.3 million) run before the State Courts; 12.7% (3.9 million), before the Federal Courts; and only 0.5%
before the Labor Courts (149 thousand). The number of pending cases grew both before the State and
Federal Courts, rising by 8.6% and 5.8%, respectively.

18

Total

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Backlog Rate

86,6%

91,4%

89,6%

89,5%

90,0%

91,1%

Share of Remanded/Dismissed cases per new case

105,5%

74,5%

77,7%

83,6%

83,9%

80,2%

Backlog Rate

61,6%

62,2%

61,8%

61,0%

61,8%

62,8%

Share of Remanded/Dismissed cases per new case

102,4%

104,4%

102,6%

101,1%

100,5%

101,1%

Backlog Rate

69,7%

71,5%

70,9%

70,1%

70,6%

71,4%

Share of Remanded/Dismissed cases per new case

102,9%

100,5%

98,9%

98,8%

98,4%

98,7%

Source: Courts in Figures 2014

19

COURTS IN FIGURES 2015 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

6
Compared Court
Productivi Index
(IPC-Jus)
The Compared Court Productivity Index (IPC Jus) was established based on the Data Envelopment
Analysis (DEA) methodology. The DEA method is a multivariate analysis technique, that is, a technique
targeted at cases whose results need to be summarized based on two or more variables or indicators.
The method is aimed at measuring the output in relation to the available resources in each court
(input). This is an efficiency evaluation method that compares the results of each court in relation to
their respective productivity. Thus, it is possible to release data on the improvements to be implemented
by each court in order to reach the production frontier, considering their available resources and
establishing an evaluation indicator for each unit6.
It is worth noting that the model brings an index of relative efficiency as a result, which means
that it identifies the courts that have reached the maximum production capacity in relation to other
courts, given the available resources. It does not mean that courts that operate at 100% efficiency
have already reached their maximum efficiency rates. Instead, it indicates that these courts stood
out positively in relation to similar institutions.
The model is applied per court system, or, more specifically, in the State Courts and the Labor
Courts. In 2014, with the opening data of the judicial district informed by the Federal Courts, was
possible to calculate the index in the Federal Courts. The method is not applied to the State Military
Courts because of the low number of courts that integrate these systems, which prevents the
6 Further details on the DEA analysis technique are listed in the 2014 edition of the Courts in Figures report, in the methodology section.

21

COURTS IN FIGURES 2015 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

implementation of an appropriate statistical analysis. The performance methodology may not be

properly applied to other court systems because of their specified jurisdiction features.

whereas the two last ones are smallsized institutions. No middlesized court managed to operate
at 100% efficiency.

The productivity index was calculated based on these considerations and according to the number
of cases the court managed to remand or dismiss in one year in relation to its caseload and available
financial and human resources. The following variables were used in the modeling process:

Data is more uniform in Labor Courts and that is why index range is smaller, with Regional
Appellate Labor Court of the 10th Circuit (TRT 10 DF/TO) occupying the lowest position, featuring an
efficiency rate of 65%. However, only four courts reached maximum efficiency, the Regional Appellate
Labor Court of the 1st Circuit (TRT 1 RJ), 2nd Circuit (TRT 2 SP), and 15th Circuit (TRT 15 SP), these in
the group of largesized courts, and the Regional Appellate Labor Court of the 8th Circuit (TRT 8 PA/
AP), in the group of middlesized courts.

Inputs: court expenditures (except expenses with retired staff), number of civil servants,
servants requested from other government agencies or entities and employees without
formal affiliation to public service, number of judges and total of cases being processed .
Output: total of remanded/dismissed cases.
To ensure a better understanding of this methodology, frontier graphs are inserted below, featuring
the assessment of only two indicators. The following graphs were jointly prepared with quadrant
graphs, which divide data into four groups, featuring dotted lines that represent the average result
for each indicator. These graphs provide for the identification of the courts that reached an optimum
productivity level (frontier line), which are displayed in the most favorable quadrant, featuring good
results in both indicators. They also provide for the identification of the underperformers, which
delivered the worst results in both indicators, based on the application of the selected methodology.

The efficiency rate of Federal Courts is less uniform among courts. The best rates are those
achieved by 5th and 3th Federal Courts whereas the 2nd and 1st have the lowest rates.
Graph 9 Compared Productivi Index - IPC Jus State Courts

6.1. Results of the Compared Productivity Index IPC Jus

The results of the IPC Jus, which go detailed next, were obtained through the application of the
DEA method, a technique that provides for the calculation of efficiency based on the simultaneous
assessment of all variables, i.e. using as inputs the total of cases being processed, the number of
judges, the number of employees (except outsourced staff and interns) and the total expenditure of
the court (except retired staff), and, as outputs, the total of remanded/dismissed cases. It is worth
noting that previous graphs apply the DEA modeling to a context in which only 2 variables are used.
The full Courts in Figures report brings other graphs that supplement the concluding remarks and
explanations on the results achieved through the application of the aforementioned model.
The average efficiency rate of State Courts amounted to 80% in 2014, and Labor Courts accounted
for 84%, according to the application of DEA techniques. There are more significant differences among
courts in the State Court System, including examples like the Courts of Appeals of Bahia (TJBA) and
Piau (TJPI), which featured relative efficiency rates of only 52.1% and 53.7%, respectively; and the
examples of other four state appellate courts that delivered sound results, operating at maximum
efficiency. Such positive examples include: the Courts of Appeals of Rio Grande do Sul (TJRS), Rio de
Janeiro (TJRJ), Gois (TJGO) and Amap (TJAP), noting that the two first examples are largesized courts

22

23

COURTS IN FIGURES 2015 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Graph 10 Compared Productivi Index - IPC Jus Labor Courts

7
Concluding
Remarks
Graph 11 Compared Productivi Index - IPC Jus Federal Courts

The figures presented in this summary report provide for the selfassessment of the services
delivered by the Judicial Branch. The major roadblock points to the difficulties to dismiss existing
cases, as the efforts to try and remand or dismiss such cases are not sufficient to meet the growing
demand. In a more specific approach, upon the assessment of the growing number of new lawsuits
and the performance indicators of judges and servants, it was possible to notice that the courts cannot
ensure the smooth ow of new cases in relation to the cases which are already being processed, as
the number of incoming cases grow more significantly than the number of entered judgments and
remanded/dismissed cases.
In this context, it is worth pointing to significant role played by tax foreclosure proceedings, which
account for 33% of the number of cases in the Judiciary. The major difficulty consists in reducing the
number of cases being processed, as despite the efforts made to increase the number of remanded/
dismissed cases, the number of cases being processed continues to grow. The backlog rate of tax
foreclosure proceedings reaches 91%, i.e. of every 100 cases being processed; only nine are annually
remanded or dismissed.
With regard to the application of the Compared Productivity Index IPC Jus, it is relevant to note
that the use of the DEA method weighs caseload, workforce and expenditures in relation to the
delivered productivity results. Such weighting provides for the quantitative identification of courts
that have conditions to improve their performance in relation to other courts that delivered increased
productivity results using similar inputs. It is then possible to measure the performance context of
the courts that succeed in remanding or dismissing a bigger number of cases and in keeping their
respective backlog rates at lower levels. The example of modelcourts those that reach increased

24

25

efficiency levels may contribute to productivity improvements in other courts that did not yet succeed
in achieving similar results.
In parallel with the initiatives to address the problems presented by tax foreclosure proceedings,
combined with projects to modernize judicial management, the compared court productivity
assessment may be a viable alternative to enhance the global performance of the Judicial Branch in
a context of evergrowing litigation.
Finally, it is worth noting that the reported data represents an effort to better understand the
context of Brazils Judicial Branch. Efforts towards a more accurate understanding of the reality are
still needed in order to have all information comprised in the Courts in Figures report supporting the
adoption of judicial policies aimed at the continuous enhancement of judicial services in Brazil.

26